Bush’s veto of a $23 billion dollar appropriations bill for water projects was overturned with a 79-12 vote in the Senate. The bill included provisions for funding repair projects covering matters such as locks on the Mississippi River and a levee in New Orleans.

The veto was the third of five in President Bush’s career at the White House, all of which have been applied since the Democrats took control of Congress. This is the first occasion when enough Republicans have sided with their opponents to provide the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto.

Some pundits, such as the writer of “Centrisity,” a non-partisan political blog, say that this is a clear indication that Congressional Republicans are distancing themselves from an increasingly unpopular administration. According to a Nov. 4 Gallup poll, Bush has only a 31 percent approval rating.

“Is this the beginning of a trend, as incumbent Republicans recognize their affiliation with the President this time around may be more of a hindrance than a help?” writes “Centrisity.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that the president rejected the bill because it was laden with “earmarks,” the pet projects slipped in by politicians to be fast-tracked into funding without going through the usual legislative process.

Perino said, "We understand that members of Congress are going to support the projects in their districts. This bill says we can fund every idea out there. That's not a responsible way to budget."

CBS News reports on the first veto override of President George W. Bush’s seven-year tenure in office. This marks a turning point in relations with Congress. During the first six years of the Bush administration, the legislative branch was controlled by Republicans. Now, amidst a Democrat-controlled Congress that is antagonistic to Bush’s policies, many Republicans will do whatever it takes to preserve their political careers, according to CBS. The bill in question, the Water Resources Development Act, sets aside $23 billion for plans such as building new locks on the Upper Mississippi, 100-year levee protection for New Orleans and a preservation project in the Florida Everglades. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said of the bill, "[It] is one of the few areas where we actually do something constructive." What Mr. Bush sees as pork-barrel items, he Lott describes as “good, deserved, justified projects."

On Nov. 8, U.S. Congress delivered the first veto override of the George W. Bush presidency. The U.S. Senate voted 79-12 in a bipartisan move to preserve an appropriations bill earmarking $23 billion for some 900 water projects across the country. The override is likely to deepen the ongoing tug-of-war between the Bush administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress over budget concerns, according to the Boston Globe. Bush spokesperson Dana Perino said, "We understand that members of Congress are going to support the projects in their districts. This bill says we can fund every idea out there. That's not a responsible way to budget."

A $606 billion appropriations bill intended to fund education, health and labor programs was nixed by President George W. Bush on Nov. 13. The president protested that Congress had imprudently applied an excessive number of earmarks. House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-Wis.), pointing out that Bush has set aside $196 billion for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, cast off the notion that Bush was concerned about the $10 billion difference. "That is not responsible and that is not credible," Obey said in a press release. "This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 50 Republicans. There has been virtually no criticism of its contents. It is clear the only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics.”

On July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush issued the first veto of his presidency, throwing out a Congressional bid to rescind funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. The vetoed measure “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” the president said, standing on stage with babies who were originally “adopted” frozen embryos. There were critical reactions from both sides of the aisle. “Those families who wake up every morning to face another day with a deadly disease or disability will not forget this decision by the president to stand in the way of sound science and medical research,” said now-Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Some conservatives were critical of the veto, as well. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a heart surgeon, said, “Given the potential of this research … I think additional [embryonic stem cell] lines should be made available.”

“Four years to the day after standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declaring ‘major combat operations’ in Iraq were over, President Bush on Tuesday [May 1, 2007] vetoed a war-spending bill that calls for the start of a withdrawal of American combat troops from the conflict,” reported CNN. The spending bill called for funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also set a timetable for U.S. soldiers to begin departing from Iraq in October, to have completely withdrawn by March 2008. A later version of the bill omitting the parts which the president disapproved was later ratified.

On Oct. 3, in only the fourth veto of his presidency, President Bush rejected a move to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The insurance plan is jointly administered by both the federal government and individual states that subsidize coverage for 6.6 million Americans, most of them children, from families whose joint incomes make them too affluent to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford private health insurance. The expansion would have added $35 billion (to be funded by an additional cigarette tax) over five years to allow 4 million more children to join the program.

Andrew Roth, a columnist for National Review magazine, decries earmarks, pet projects slipped by legislators into large appropriation bills, thus avoiding the scrutiny and the approval process through which most spending bills must pass. He writes that earmarks “are often ‘air dropped’ into conference reports after the House and Senate initially pass their versions of a bill. For instance, the price tag on a recent bill to fund water projects increased by more than 60 percent after both chambers of Congress approved it. This was largely due to earmarks.”

“Centrisity,” a blog written by an avowed Minnesotan moderate, notes how the veto override marks a shift within the GOP to distance themselves from the Bush administration. “The President may be a lame duck, but there is a swarm of Republican Legislators who would like to be re-hired by their constituencies again,” writes “Centrisity.”

Dale McFeatters, a writer for Scripps Howard News Service, says that the veto override isn’t necessarily a measure of Bush’s inefficacy as he nears the end of his term. Scripps argues that Bush’s veto would seem less politically driven if he had rejected bills passed by the Republican-controlled Congress during his first term. “And in contrast to the president's newfound parsimony on domestic spending, he continues to spend lavishly on defense and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrats are beginning to dwell on the contrast to score political points, making swing Republicans uneasy,” Scripps writes.

If a president vetoes a bill, it must subsequently pass again through both the Senate and the House of Representatives with a two-thirds majority for it to become law. The U.S. House of Representatives has an illustrated step-by-step guide on this process, as well as a link to a tally of overridden presidential vetoes throughout U.S. history.